Hansard Transcripts 1983-Nov-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: Yesterday, the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen) delivered a petition to the Lieutenant Governor. After he delivered that petition, he made a summation in which he said he was delivering the petition because the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) was ill, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) was travelling in Saudi Arabia and the member for Hastings-Peterborough was unwilling to do so.

I would like to mention that Jim Sunstrum of Napanee called me and asked whether I would present this petition. I agreed. I asked that he deliver it to my office. That petition was never delivered to my office. I called Mr. Sunstrum again this morning and asked whether there had been some misunderstanding. He said there was not; he just did not deliver it.

I would like to know where the member for Frontenac-Addington got his information.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege. You cannot ask the honourable member a question in the House. I suggest you confer with him at a later date.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: He did indeed correct the record.

Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I only stated the facts. I will be very happy to supply a copy of the letter to the honourable member, indicating exactly the words I repeated in the House, with the signature of the person who sent the petition to me and the letter.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. That is all we are going to hear. We are not going to develop it into a debate.

FARM PROPERTY TAX

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. In 1981, a major policy statement was contained in the budget regarding the reform of property taxation. In February 1982, a statement was released by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics with quite a detailed discussion about property tax reform. In November 1982, property tax reform was thoroughly discussed in the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. In 1983, the minister included in his statement at the beginning of his estimates quite a detailed comment on property tax reform.

For two and a half years, the way has been paved for the reform of property taxation in this province. Farm properties have been assessed. Numerous brochures have been printed -- I had one with me, but I do not know where it is -- and sent out across the province on this, information bulletins were printed and released, all at taxpayers' expense.

With an issue so important, so controversial and so much debated in the House and in committee, I feel the privileges of this House have been breached because the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) chose to go to a hotel in the north end of Toronto to make the announcement that he was doing a complete reversal of property tax reform rather than coming into this House and making the announcement when it has been thoroughly debated in this House and so much taxpayers' money has been spent in carrying out this property tax reform.

Even though the minister is thoroughly embarrassed by his original statement that a vast majority of farmers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member please resume his seat.

Mr. Riddell: -- would benefit from the reform of property taxation, why did he not have the intestinal fortitude to come into this House, admit he was wrong and tell us he was going to change his policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege. I suggest the member place his question to the minister, not to me. I have nothing to do with that.

Mr. Riddell: Where is he?

Mr. Speaker: You might better ask him, not me. I am not responsible for his attendance.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: If I may have the undivided attention of all honourable members, I would like to introduce a guest who is sitting in the members' gallery: Mr. Walter Johnson, MLA, Saltcoats riding, who is the legislative secretary to the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ANNIVERSARY

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as you know, 1984 will be a special year in our province. Toronto will be marking its 150th birthday and Ontario its 200th with a lineup of special events and festivities. Yet there is one other anniversary next year of an important binational engineering accomplishment. I am speaking of the 25th anniversary of the St. Lawrence Seaway's opening.

Administration of the seaway is not a provincial responsibility, but my ministry has a mandate to ensure that Ontario's entire transportation network serves the whole province well, and the Great Lakes-seaway system is a vital part of that network. It is natural that its wellbeing is of great concern, a concern manifested in 1981 with the report of the provincial Great Lakes-seaway Task Force under chairman Ralph Misener.

One of its recommendations was that the people of Ontario be made more aware of the tremendous contribution the seaway makes to this province's economy. I am sure both sides of the House will agree with me that the 25th anniversary is a prime opportunity to further that awareness.

To that end, my ministry's marine and pipeline office staff commissioned the design of a logo to symbolize those two and a half decades of service. I am proud to say it has now been adopted as the international symbol for the seaway anniversary. Ports, marine associations, industries and other governments on both sides of the border will be flying the symbol.

As members can see from the copies being handed out to them now, the system's international partnership is represented by the combined American star and Canadian maple leaf. The water that flows through the locks to raise ships from the Atlantic to the highlands of Lake Superior takes the form of the number 25. Finally, to reflect the importance of shipping, the motif includes the distinctive profile of freshwater and ocean-going vessels. Both English and bilingual versions are available.

A design manual has been produced detailing the logo's correct use and reproduction in a variety of applications, from the bow of a ship to a baseball cap. It is my intention to have my ministry play a co-ordinating role in encouraging industries, ports and associations to use the logo on their products, services and publications. I also enlist the members support to encourage the organizations in their constituencies who have an interest in the seaway to consider using the logo design in all possible ways.

Should any members wish a copy of the design manual, they are available from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications' marine and pipeline office. Because this is an anniversary worth remembering, I believe it is important that the public be made aware of the value of the seaway to all of us in Ontario.

2:10 p.m.

TRUST COMPANIES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my statement, I wonder if I might draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of three members of the advisory committee respecting the trust company takeover last year: Mr. Allen Lambert, former chairman of the board of the Toronto-Dominion Bank; Mr. Ainslie Shuve, who acted as chief executive officer of Crown Trust Co.; and Mr. William Potter, who is president of the Trust Companies Association of Canada.

Further to my statement of October 11, 1983, I am pleased to be able to advise the House today that I am tabling three related documents.

The first is the white paper entitled A Proposal for Revision of Loan and Trust Corporation Legislation and Administration in Ontario. The second is a Special Report of the Registrar of Loan and Trust Corporations concerning Crown Trust Company, Greymac Trust Company, Seaway Trust Company, Greymac Mortgage Corporation and Seaway Mortgage Corporation. The third is the Internal Review of the Administration of Loan and Trust Corporations by the ministry's financial institutions division, with a response from the division on the action it has taken in respect of matters commented upon in the review.

As some months have elapsed since many of the issues discussed in these documents were current news, I would like to make a few comments that I hope will be of assistance to members as they read the three documents.

Members will recall that on November 16, 1982, almost precisely one year ago today, I announced in this House a series of proposed steps. These were designed to deal with problems that became particularly prominent following the Cadillac Fairview sale of approximately 11,000 rental units to Greymac Credit Corp. and the subsequent flips of these units to Kilderkin Investments Ltd. and then to 50 numbered companies.

Part of my statement at that time related to concerns about the impact of the transactions on rental properties. This resulted in the passage of a rent restraint bill and the employment of Stuart D. Thom, QC, as a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act to look into the application of the existing laws to the regulation of rents and to make recommendations on changes to eliminate or reduce any of the inequities in the present system.

Another part of my statement of a year ago related to issues arising under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. Specifically, I drew the attention of the House to the concerns that were created by the reported sale price for the rental units rising from $270 million to $312.5 million and then to $500 million in the course of the series of transactions I previously referred to.

As a result of my concerns in this regard, Mr. James A. Morrison was appointed under section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act to make a special examination and audit of the books, accounts and securities, and to inquire generally into the conduct of the business of Crown Trust Co., Greymac Trust Co., Seaway Trust Co., Greymac Mortgage Corp. and Seaway Mortgage Corp. I am sure all members are aware of Mr. Morrison's report, which I tabled in this House on July 13, 1983.

On December 21, 1982, I made a further statement in this House in relation to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. Members may recall I pointed out at that time that I found the options available to me as minister and to the registrar appointed under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act to be inadequate to deal with the economic times and the business practices that now confront us. I reminded the House that an unnumbered bill proposing amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act had been put out for discussion by my predecessor. I also pointed out that I believed the unnumbered bill did not cover the broader range of issues that were before us.

I therefore advised that we would be issuing a white paper dealing with these issues for public discussion of our proposals. At the same time, I announced our intention to proceed with certain amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act which we believed were necessary to deal with some urgent situations that required immediate attention.

Members may also recall I initiated an internal review of the operations of the financial administration division of my ministry to determine the extent to which our own procedures and administration might be at fault or inadequate in dealing with the various situations that faced us. The results of a very thorough internal review were received and led to some immediate changes in the division. I will have more to say about this later.

That is a brief outline of some of the events leading up to the initiation of the white paper and our internal review. However, as I am sure the members are aware, the issues to be dealt with by the paper and the review go beyond the situations arising out of the Cadillac Fairview sales.

In recent years, the whole world has been dealing with a wide range of economic problems that have created unprecedented volatility in financial markets. During the past three years, particular difficulties were faced by those companies specializing in long-term and fixed-rate mortgage financing. Not only did loan and trust corporations lose a significant portion of the mortgage market to the banks; they also found that their profit margins on fixed rate mortgage loans in many cases were eroded because these loans were funded with shorter-term deposits on which interest rates rose appreciably. In some cases, the rates paid on deposits exceeded the rates earned on loans.

Fortunately, as interest rates have returned to lower levels and as the industry adjusted its mortgage terms to match its terms on deposits and took other steps to correct the mismatching of funds, the situation has largely been brought under control.

This situation was not unique to loan and trust corporations. Members will recall the recent legislation that was required to restructure the administration of credit unions and caisses populaires. They will also recall the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act that were introduced to deal with situations where the failure of federal casualty insurance companies left motorists and others in this province without the insurance they had purchased.

Nor was the situation unique to Canada or Ontario. More American banks have failed in 1983 to date than in any year since 1940. The US Comptroller of Currency expects that more than 50 banks will fail in the United States this year. A similar picture emerges from the statistics on US savings and loan associations.

I realize that the American banking system is different from ours and that these statistics cannot be directly related to our financial community. I do believe, however, that they clearly indicate the difficult times faced by lending institutions in recent years.

It would appear that at the same time loan and trust corporations were having such a difficulty economic time, a number of persons entered the field who did not consider themselves bound by the traditional standards of prudence and care that have historically been associated with the administration of trust funds.

It is in the context of these two major issues, uncertain and volatile economic conditions and disregard for fiduciary obligations, that the recommendations of the white paper have been made. In dealing with these issues we were mindful of the fact that the loan and trust industry as a whole has dealt with the economic problems in a responsible and effective manner. It is therefore not necessary or desirable to burden the industry with extensive new regulatory requirements. We also agreed with the observation made in the 1964 Porter Royal Commission on Banking and Finance that "regulation cannot guarantee that there will never be incompetent, negligent or even dishonest management in the financial system unless every transaction were to be investigated ahead of time and economic life brought to a complete halt."

The basic goal of the white paper, therefore, was to minimize the opportunity for careless or intended maladministration of the assets that are under the control of loan and trust corporations without creating excessive regulatory requirements. To accomplish this goal, it is proposed that certain legislative, administrative and organizational changes be made with respect to the ownership, operation and regulation of loan and trust corporations. The following is a summary of the principal proposals in the white paper:

1. As members may know, the federal white paper proposed a 10 per cent limitation on share ownership in federal loan and trust companies having deposit liabilities of $1 billion or more. Our review of this approach failed to disclose any evidence that larger corporations -- that is, corporations with deposit liabilities of $1 billion or more -- are more likely to engage in abuses of the regulatory process or of their fiduciary obligations than smaller corporations. Indeed, the opposite would seem to be more likely, since the ownership of none of the three Ontario loan and trust corporations or the two federal mortgage companies that were subject to recent government action would have been affected by a legislative provision reflecting the federal proposal.

We have reached the conclusion that, as a general rule, the limitation of share ownership is not the appropriate measure to control the problems we have been facing. We believe this can be done much better by establishing a combination of management rules and procedures and reporting requirements and inspections that should be much more effective in obtaining compliance with the act and regulations and adherence to the fiduciary responsibilities that are so essential to the operation of a trust company.

Not only do we find that limitations on share ownership as a general rule may not produce the management results we are looking for, but also we believe that it might seriously affect the capacity, particularly of smaller corporations, to raise capital needed for growth and development.

2:20 p.m.

Thus, while the white paper proposes that the registrar should have the power to deal with specific cases where limits on share ownership may be part of an appropriate regulatory response, it is proposed that no specific limit be placed on shareholdings. The acquisition of holdings of 10 per cent or more or the increase in holdings over 10 per cent would continue to be subject to review as provided for in the amendments made last December, and this review would be enlarged so that it effectively applies not only to Ontario incorporated loan and trust corporations, as is now the case, but also to loan and trust corporations incorporated in other provinces and by the federal government.

At the same time, a greater emphasis on reporting requirements and a clearer definition of the responsibilities of directors, officers, auditors, legal advisers and management will be relied upon to deal with the potential conflict of interest situations that some persons have argued are a justification for the limitation on share ownership.

2. It is proposed that there be established within the ministry a new senior office to be known as the commissioner of financial institutions reporting directly to the minister. The commissioner should be a senior respected person in the financial, legal or accounting community appointed for a fixed period of time by order in council. The commissioner's responsibilities would be broad and far-reaching with respect to loan and trust corporations, insurance companies, credit unions and other financial institutions regulated within the ministry. The office would combine advisory, policy and appellate functions with monitoring and evaluating roles responsive to industry and public concerns.

3. The financial institutions division of the ministry would be reorganized to create more administrative and policy development capacity and to enable the registrar of loan and trust corporations to assume the wider range of responsibilities that are created by other proposed changes. The division would also have a special unit to monitor and investigate any unusual business practices or personnel in any of the regulated financial institutions.

4. All loan and trust corporations carrying on business in Ontario, including those incorporated federally or in other provinces, would be subject to the same standards and criteria to the fullest extent that our constitutional authority allows us to impose such uniformity.

5. As previously announced, a new monthly reporting of critical financial and other indicators based on standard accounting procedures is being developed and would be required of all loan and trust corporations doing business in Ontario.

6. Minimum capital requirements would be increased and further increases in capital would only be allowed where there is a demonstrated capacity to manage it effectively. The activities of subsidiaries and holding companies that affect the operation of a loan or trust corporation would also be subject to greater control.

7. Independent audit committees and investment committees would be required and an onus would be placed on auditors and officers that is designed to ensure that remedial action is taken when required.

8. Limitations would be placed on various types of investments and the principles to be applied in valuing property for lending purposes would be specified.

9. Loan and trust corporations that have demonstrated their capabilities over a number of years would be authorized to engage in commercial lending up to an amount equivalent to 15 per cent of their assets, with limits on loans to any one borrower.

10. The registrar would be given powers to enforce the maintenance of proper borrowing ratios, borrowing cost, matching practices and related financial safeguards by the corporations.

11. An enlarged system of appeals to the commissioner of financial institutions and to the courts is proposed to balance the increased regulatory powers of the registrar. In general, the role of the Lieutenant Governor in Council in approving letters patent, supplementary letters patent and the extraordinary remedy of taking possession and control of the assets of a corporation would remain unchanged.

We believe these proposed changes will provide the ministry and the loan and trust industry with a much clearer statement of their respective powers and responsibilities. Undoubtedly other changes might be suggested. I am sure the members opposite will wish to critically review the white paper and express their own views on the issues raised in that paper.

For that reason and also so that interested persons from the financial community and the public generally might address themselves to the issues in the paper, I propose that the white paper be referred to a committee of the Legislature for study over the winter break.

Before closing, I would like to speak briefly to the other two documents I am tabling today. The second document I mentioned is a special report of the registrar of loan and trust corporations on the five corporations. This document was prepared in order to provide a general overview of the history of recent events, both before and after the registrar took possession and control of the assets of the three Ontario corporations and the federal superintendent took control of the two federal companies.

Although the Morrison report and some of the other documents tabled in the House have shed considerable light on these events, they still remain complicated fact situations. I believe the registrars comments will be of assistance in understanding the course of action followed by him and the government. Included as an appendix to the report is a list of the major court actions relating to these matters.

The third document tabled today is the report of the internal review of the loan and trust administration. I believe members will find that the fact this review was carried out by ministry staff has in no way compromised their ability to deal critically and openly with any shortcomings that they discovered in the financial institutions division.

Among other subjects touched on in the review, it comments on staffing levels, training and documentation of procedures. Many of the findings resulted in immediate remedial action and further action will be taken in the course of the implementation of the white paper proposals.

The report recommends a further review of the resources available to the division. While some aspects of this are already under way, I expect the new position of commissioner of financial institutions will provide an additional view from outside of government on these matters that will be of considerable assistance in carrying out such reviews. I believe it is absolutely essential that the financial institutions of this province are administered with the highest level of efficiency and effectiveness so that they in turn can continue to function as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I realize these three documents add more paper to an already large file of material that has been made available to members of this House. It is my hope that all of this material will not only enable the members to appreciate the magnitude and complexity of the issues we are discussing, but will also enable them to understand some of the background facts that are so important to the position the government has taken. I look forward to a full discussion of these documents in committee.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRUST COMPANY REGULATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. The Premier in his long tenure here will be familiar with the fact that in the past 15 years in this province we have had more than 10 collapses or near collapses of financial institutions. In other words, there were many distant early warnings with respect to the problems that have developed.

He will be aware that the internal review tabled today is a damning indictment, not only of the fact that the ministry had improper processes but that it did not use the powers it had under the existing act. He will also be aware that at the present time there is more than $500 million of the public's money paid out through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp., and God knows how many legal and professional fees, in trying to sort out this mess.

Can the Premier say why it is the processes were not in place to have prevented the collapse that caused this great calamity?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is indulging in rhetoric to a modest degree. We have discussed for several months in the past and I think it is obvious -- if not to him, to members of the public -- that the minister and the ministry have reacted to this problem in a very positive, constructive way.

Their actions have retained the financial credibility of the industry and were supported by members of the industry, some of whom have advised this member on occasion. I believe the minister and his colleagues in the ministry deserve a great deal of credit for the way in which they reacted to a difficult situation.

2:30 p.m.

I should also point out to the Leader of the Opposition that when he tries to draw parallels between situations that have occurred over a large number of years, if he analyses them correctly they are not all the same. The circumstances were different, as I recall them, in almost every individual case.

I would say that relative to other jurisdictions, places where the same level of financial or business activity in this industry is carried on, the reputation of this province is as great as it ever was. I think it is fair to state that for people knowledgeable in the industry the reputation of the industry in this province is probably unequalled anywhere in North America.

I know that is not the kind of thing the Leader of the Opposition will attempt to convey to the public generally. I recall very well his observations, not only about existing legislation but about new legislation we should have, which advice I listened to and then he voted against. I recall those discussions very vividly, and some of his points of view expressed at that time.

I say without hesitation I have total confidence in the capacity of the minister and in the way he has handled this difficult issue, in a way which has done credit to him and to the industry with which he co-operated in finding the solution to this difficult problem. I reiterate that the proof is there. The reputation of the industry for integrity in this province is still among the highest one will find anywhere.

Mr. Peterson: I remind the first minister he had total confidence in the present minister's predecessor, the member for London South (Mr. Walker), who assured us he had the systems in place so that this would not happen again. Presumably he had the same kind of confidence in the previous succession of ministers who were involved in similar kinds of collapses that sent off signals to anyone concerned that there was going to be a major problem in this province.

Why did the government, of which he is the head and of which he has been Premier for over a decade now, not address this problem before it happened rather than after it happened? Why was he not impressed by all the warnings that there was a serious problem that had to be addressed? Why was he the last one to be aware that this problem was bound to develop without competent regulators and without proper legislation in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is also important for the Leader of the Opposition, because he is so knowledgeable in this field, to understand that no degree of regulation or legislation will preclude in its entirety the matters we have experienced. No legislation is going to make it impossible for those who wish to get around the imposed regulations or the system to make those determinations.

Mr. Peterson: It was obvious what they were doing. Why did the Premier not know when everybody else did?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It may have been obvious. I know the Leader of the Opposition came in and told me he had heard rumours about Seaway, etc. I asked him for specifics, and I am not being critical --

Mr. Peterson: I gave specifics every day in this House and the Premier denied them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. This was well before that and the member knows it. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that his posture on this issue, his consistency, which is really inconsistent, puts him in a very delicate position. He sat there and voted against the very legislation he recommended in my office and we introduced. He did not support it. He had no concern whatsoever about the depositors. He was interested only in playing party politics.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am not sensitive about the Premier's personal insults. He can get away with them if he wants to, but I understand there is a rule in this House that members are not allowed to impute motives to other members.

Due to the seriousness of this issue, and because you have the ultimate political player sitting opposite hurling this insult, in the interests of decorum in this House you should ask the Premier to withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have no reservations at all about withdrawing anything that has pricked the conscience of the Leader of the Opposition. Whatever it is that has upset him, if he would communicate it to Hansard I will, without hesitation, withdraw it.

The only thing I would suggest is that he reread Hansard and reread what he has said about the present minister responsible and wonder whether he might not withdraw some of those observations.

Mr. Conway: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to review the Hansard with a view to taking into account, in my view, the very legitimate point raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the clear imputation of motive by the first minister and report back to this House at your earliest convenience to see that the standing orders were not abridged.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is anything to report back on. The Premier did, in fact, withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Rae: We have always taken the view, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is not a party politician, so I would hope the Premier would withdraw the use of that term.

The question I have for the Premier is simply this --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South has the floor.

Mr. Rae: I obviously touched a sensitive chord.

Mr. Conway: Pucker up, Bobby.

Mr. Rae: Bless you, my son.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The fact of the matter is, as has been laid out in the reports that have been tabled today by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), the government knew in 1981 specifically with respect to serious problems with Seaway and certainly knew of similar problems -- and these problems again are documented in both the reports that have been tabled today -- in 1982 with respect to Greymac.

Yet at the same time these problems were being identified additional capital was being authorized by order in council as late as September 1982, a very few short months prior to the seizure of the assets of these companies by the government of Ontario. These are not questions of street rumours. These are not questions of matters of hearsay. These are questions that were documented by the registrar and identified by the registrar and by the government.

Is the Premier prepared to at least establish an independent commission to inquire as to how in the name of goodness it 's as possible for the cabinet of this province to authorize by order in council increases in the working capital of these companies at the very same time as they were being identified as having serious problems, as the management of those companies was being seriously questioned by the registrar and questions were being asked as to the bona fides of the directors and principals of those companies?

Mr. Foulds: An excellent question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, a member across the floor said, "An excellent question." I think somebody observed several months ago that it was a very fair question to ask and I would only suggest to the leader of the New Democratic Party that he carefully review Hansard and he will find a very appropriate answer from the minister as it relates exactly to that same question.

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Premier as to the internal review that has been tabled today and was available on June 14. He has had it in his ministry and in his cabinet chambers for the last five months. He decided to release it today and for that we are grateful.

He will be aware that in that report the examiner looks at the inadequacy of many of the provisions of enforcement and the processes used by the ministry. He will also be aware that there are a number of judgements which could have been made by certain people, although ultimately the responsibility is the minister's, that were clearly just wrong in the circumstances. For example, there are quotes indicating that with hindsight we should have done different things. There were so many errors of judgement demonstrated in this report.

2:40 p.m.

Would the Premier agree to have an external review of this matter? Obviously, the author of this report did not identify those people who made the errors of judgement. If he is not going to identify them or the Premier is not, all we can do is hold the minister, his predecessor and or the Premier responsible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition will try to hold somebody responsible for whatever happens. I understand that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is the way the system works--

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not being critical. Do not be so sensitive.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- or is supposed to.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right.

In relation to the report of the internal review, no one is going to argue that people do not have the responsibility to exercise judgement. We are all blessed with hindsight, even the Leader of the Opposition. One can question whether or not proper judgements were made. But if the Leader of the Opposition wants to get at certain personalities, I do not know them. I know one or two of the people who have been there for some time. I do not say the present registrar represents perfection. Very few people represent perfection. The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) feels he does, but not too many of us do. But he is a very conscientious, honest, dedicated, loyal and competent public servant. I am referring to the registrar, not that member.

Mr. Speaker: New question; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is again going to take us on a merry-go-round always blaming someone else, or at least not identifying the source of it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The question is, who is responsible for this?

TRUST COMPANY LICENCES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the minister in charge of regulating trust companies. Presumably, he was personally involved in a number of judgements that had to be made with respect to the renewing of licences.

He will recall that Greymac Trust was on a monthly licence. Then just four, five or six days before the great Cadillac Fairview flip, the company was granted an extended licence. To refresh his memory, he was asked about that in the House and he said he did not really have the power to grant only a monthly licence. Therefore, he had to grant Greymac its licence for an extended period of time. At the same time, he was holding up the licence of Seaway, which was on a monthly or quarterly licence renewal.

Obviously, the minister used two different standards. In one case, he said he did not have the power. In the other case, he seized the power, at the very least, and granted a short-term licence. Presumably, the minister made the decision or at least he was aware of it. Why would he use two different standards in that case? Why was he not at that point aware of the goings on in Greymac Trust?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the matter of what we were or were not aware of with respect to what was going on in Greymac Trust is clearly documented in the information that has been tabled in this House and given to the member today.

When we introduced legislation on December 21, 1982, to deal with matters we felt we did not have the existing adequate power to deal with, it was made very clear to me by a number of members of the opposition I spoke to that the registrar must have certain unrestricted powers because those things, it was said, should be in the hands of the registrar.

The issue of dealing with renewals is a matter which the registrar deals with. Certainly, I am made aware of his decisions, and if I did not agree with him, I would let him know. But I have the utmost confidence in that registrar and I affirm here what the Premier has said about the particular man the member must be talking about. I find him to be a dedicated, committed public servant of whom we should have every reason to be proud. The fact that he is being mentioned does the member no credit. I say that sincerely.

Let me now get to the issue of the renewal of Greymac Credit's licence. Greymac Credit was put on a month-to-month licence, even though there was no statutory base for so doing. Similarly, Seaway was put on a month-to-month licence, having previously been on a quarterly licence, again without statutory base but without objection by the party.

Towards the end of October, objections with respect to our legislative base were made. In addition, a lengthy letter was written to Greymac Trust and to Mr. Hammond, the superintendent of insurance in Ottawa, with respect to the reissuing of the licence. It was made clear that certain things had to be done by that company. Mr. Wexler signed on behalf of Greymac Trust, indicating they would do those things. In light of those two facts, the licence was renewed.

In addition, as the member knows from reading the documents, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp., the federal superintendent and our registrar had already put in motion a team of investigators to review the valuations being carried out on those companies, so anybody was far but satisfied. That is in the records the member has before him. We have been extremely open about it. That is what he should be commenting on.

Mr. Peterson: I should give the minister credit because Greymac and Seaway were satisfied. Is that what he is asking me for?

We have asked about the responsibility for this thing. The minister has launched a major defence of the registrar under whose jurisdiction all these judgements were made. If the minister has complete faith in the competence and ability of the registrar, who then was responsible for this litany of incompetent and wrong judgements that were made for at least two years? If he is not responsible, who is?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me just say that in his report Mr. Morrison commented upon the almost daily monitoring activities, conversations and dealings with the companies that were going on. We are not talking here about a situation where a registrar and his staff were not deeply involved in and deeply concerned with the issues before them. That is not the issue here today.

I have also indicated very clearly that these are matters that are to be tabled. They may be discussed when the committee meets during the winter break. If the member has the desire to do so, he has all the time in the world to question those involved who made those decisions.

They were operating under a mandate that had been approved by the most recent royal commission on this issue, the 1969 royal commission, in which the commissioner clearly stated that backsliding by one or two companies did not justify a change in the ordinary and regular examination routines that were being carried out.

What I am saying today is that with the bill of December 21, 1982, we changed that stance and we are going against the advice of that royal commission. We are now clearly in an enforcement and investigative mode. I am afraid that is the way it is going to be, whether the Leader of the Opposition likes it or not.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said Greymac challenged the authority of the ministry to put them on a one-month leash. What was the nature of that challenge? If there was a challenge in October and the minister had concerns which are documented here in paragraph after paragraph with respect to the operations of these companies, as soon as there was any kind of challenge issued, why did the minister not come to the Legislature right away and say, "We need the authority to be able to deal with these people because we do not trust them"?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not think there is anything easier than driving forward looking through a rearview mirror. That is the kind of trip the member enjoys. We all understand that. But as he drifts around on the Good Ship Lollipop, let us acknowledge that within a matter of days from that decision, while other investigative procedures were already in place, we were confronted with the Cadillac Fairview transaction, as it is called, and Mr. Morrison's investigation and other investigations superseded any other type of change for that time. But as soon as it became apparent that changes were needed, they were brought before this House.

Mr. Peterson: I refer the minister to the debate in the House on Thursday, June 11, 1981, when his predecessor referred to a number of improvements in the regulatory system. He talked about more extensive internal communication, many joint meetings, new systems in place for capturing potential problems and bringing them to the attention of top management and an early warning system he kept in place for two months, I gather, which then disappeared. All the assurances we had from the minister at that time have turned out for naught.

As the minister recalls, Mr. Thompson, who is in charge of those matters, did not file annual reports for a couple of years. His annual reports, talking about these very issues, were not even brought forward, presumably to the minister or at least to this Legislature, so anybody could know what was going on. That man did not choose to share that information.

Now it is also obvious that he chose not to act on the instructions of the previous minister. How can we have any assurances now that the laws of this land as they currently exist with respect to the regulation of trust companies are being enforced?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think it is fair to say there was improvement in the communications between the various divisions of the ministry, as the minister announced at that time.

What we are saying now is that even that process clearly does not meet the kind of circumstances that we are confronted with in a variety of situations, as outlined clearly in the white paper and in the documents before the members. With those proposed legislative changes and with the changes recommended in the internal review, we feel regulators can competently cope with the new kind of environment they are facing.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION INTERNAL REVIEW

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations can tell us why the internal review bears the date June 14, 1983, and why it has taken the minister all this time to let the public and this Legislature have a look at this internal review of what has happened with respect to these companies.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first, the internal review was received in late June following printing. The Morrison report had not yet been received. A review of that report, the internal review and the Morrison report, was carried out and, as I have said on many occasions, a final determination as to whether or not there should be an external review was not made by me until some time last month. That is the reason it seemed appropriate to me to table them all at this time.

Does the member see anything wrong with tabling three documents for open consideration by this Legislature of the issues? I do not. I call it open and responsible government.

Mr. Rae: I call it a five-month coverup. That is exactly what it is. The minister had this document for five months --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: --and he was not prepared to release it to the public and the Legislature as he said he would do as soon as it was available.

Specifically, I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to this document. The document refers to the need for an establishment of an early warning system. I would like to ask the minister to cast his mind back, if he would, to statements that were made by his colleague, who is now Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), who indicated to the House and to committees as long ago as 1981 that there was a system of red-flagging in place in the division which would prevent the recurrence of any difficulties such as happened before 1981 with respect to Astra Trust and the mortgage companies.

I would like to ask the current minister what in the name of goodness is going on if it takes an internal review to say we need an early warning system when it was identified and supposed to have been put in place by his government two-and-a-half or three years before.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, I want to thank the member for raising the question once again. What I have said clearly is that the previous minister did indicate to the House that some improvements had taken place with respect to red-flagging. That is hardly the issue that is before us in this situation, nor is it discussed in that document.

I would say very clearly that to say there was anything inaccurate in what he said is not so.

Mr. Peterson: On page 17 of the report, with respect to the distant early warning system, it says, "This system was operative for two months, February and March. It was successful in identifying companies requiring prompt attention. However, the need to conduct annual examinations made it necessary to redirect staff, thereby discontinuing the system."

The system promised by the minister's predecessor was in place for two months and then it was dismantled, presumably because of inadequate resources, and we did not catch this system. Why was not that system maintained? If it is so great now, why was it not great then?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With respect, I think the member will find, as I am advised by the registrar, that the system they are testing out now on a pilot project basis is a system that has been set up in consultation and with advice from members of the industry. It is not the same system at all.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the minister whether he was personally interviewed by Mr. Tocher or the members of his task force with regard to this so-called internal review of the situation. Was the minister ever examined or cross-examined in any way by the task force?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I was not; nor did I suggest I would not be available; nor was I asked any questions; nor do I think I would have anything to add to what he has done.

Mr. Rae: In the very brief lockup we were afforded with Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Tocher and other officials, Mr. Tocher indicated that not only was the minister not asked any questions with respect to the conduct of the department, but neither was the deputy minister, and neither the minister nor the deputy minister were asked any questions whatsoever about the decisions that were made with respect to Seaway and Greymac and the decisions to increase the amount of authorized capital, the decisions that were made and are documented in the registrar's report.

We still do not have an independent assessment of the decisions that were made. I would simply like to go back to the minister and ask him this. The internal review has not dealt with it; the registrar's report has not dealt with it; Mr. Morrison's inquiry did not focus on the issue. Why is the minister so reluctant to establish an independent inquiry into the decisions that were made with respect to Seaway and Greymac so that people can be held responsible for things that happened and a degree of political responsibility can be assigned for this colossal mismanagement of literally hundreds of millions of people's money?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I cannot accept the member's view -- and I suspect it really is not his view--that there was any colossal mismanagement. I think what we have seen is a government responding with an aggressive, appropriate action that has resulted in retention of public confidence in the institutions that are so valuable to this country and with total protection of public depositors who are at arm's length in the situation.

I do not agree with the member at all that there is any catastrophe or disaster. I think we have demonstrated the kind of leadership that has to be demonstrated when we are faced with situations such as we are dealing with here. Mr. Tocher's decision not to interview me, for example, was his decision. Surely the member is not of the view that I should have intervened and indicated whom he should or should not talk to.

That was his decision, and I accept the report as an independent appraisal of the matters before him and the matters before the government. That is a report which is now made public. It is a report all of us in this Legislature will have the right to review and ask questions about when the matter is before committee. If this is not responding with openness and with detailed information, I do not know what is.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Tocher has been an employee of the minister's ministry for 11 years. Is the minister seriously arguing that his definition of an independent inquiry into what has happened over the last three years in that industry consists of a report in which there is no cross-examination under oath, in which there is no ability to subpoena documents, in which there is no ability to question officers of the cabinet about cabinet decisions that have been made, and where the Premier (Mr. Davis) has not been cross-examined under oath, nor have the minister, the deputy minister, the registrar or any other individual responsible for these decisions?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think it is a very effective evaluation carried out by a very competent group of people not directly involved in the institutional group they were evaluating, and coming out with a report I think even the member has to say is remarkably objective.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the whole focus of the response of the minister, and indeed of the Premier, is: "Aren't we clever boys? Didn't we handle this well? We kept confidence in the industry." That is not the issue. The issue is that this is the greatest regulatory failure in the history of this province. There were lots of early warnings and it could have been prevented had the minister and his ministry been on the job two or three years earlier. This is the issue, not how clever the minister was at sneaking around with legislation in this House, expropriating property with no due process and all that kind of thing.

I want the minister to be very clear on what the issue is, the point raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party and by me is this. Neither of us is satisfied with this internal review. It is too fishy; it is too cooked-up. Neither of us is satisfied we had an independent look. We have a list of some of the problems and the inadequate processes. We still do not know why it happened and we should know. We were given assurances many times in the past that it would not happen again, and it did happen. Why will the minister not now have an independent inquiry, an external review or, indeed, a royal commission inquiry into this entire mess? No one is satisfied with his answers at this point.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, Mr. Speaker, I take umbrage at one particular remark, "sneaking around with new legislation." I presume the honourable member is referring to a meeting with supposedly responsible leaders of the two opposition parties to discuss a need for certain legislation. Is that what he meant by sneaking around? If that is sneaking around, he has a strange view of the public interest role that we play in this House.

Mr. Roy: Talk about the breach of natural justice.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Is it a breach of natural justice to talk to the leaders of the opposition parties?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think a careful internal review in conjunction with the registrar's special report cannot help but lead any thoughtful independent observer to the fact that there is a complete review and history of all the processes that were in place and all the things that happened. I think the House has been ably served by those who prepared those documents.

Mr. Rae: Let there be no doubt, the internal review is a damning indictment of the ministry and of what happened. The difficulty with the internal review is that no one is held politically responsible for what has happened. Who does the minister think is responsible for what happened, given the damning indictment that the documentation standards were inadequate, that field examinations were inadequate, that there was the lack of an early warning system -- item after item that has been documented in the internal review? Who is responsible?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have tried to suggest in my statement, and I am sure the authors of the documents tried as they described what we wished them to say, that regulators responding to admonitions as recently as a 1969 royal commission inquiry with respect to their role had been examining and monitoring under, let us call it a "gentleman's agreement" arrangement, or "moral suasion" as others might call it, and assuming that those who had fiduciary responsibilities would continue to act responsibly.

That clearly was not the case. It was recognized by me not to be the case, and it was recognized that there needed to be a total change in the way these matters were approached. That change was heralded by the legislation of December 21, 1982. Those changes are now in place and that mode is now in place.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the acting Minister of Health. The minister will recall that on a number of occasions over the past year we have raised the matter of a lack of active treatment beds in Ottawa-Carleton. We told his predecessor, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), that in two cases people died before they were given the opportunity to have active care beds in Ottawa-Carleton. The minister's predecessor said last June he would investigate this matter.

Would this minister advise me what I should say to a constituent I called last night? He told me that on October 5 he was diagnosed as having a lung tumour. On speaking to his doctor he was told that he required early corrective measures and, if necessary, surgery. Five weeks later he is still unable to get a bed at the Ottawa General Hospital.

Will the minister undertake at least to investigate this matter to allow Mr. Edgar McWilliams to have a bed so he can get the proper treatment? Second, can the minister advise what has happened to his predecessor's investigation as to the necessity of additional active treatment beds for Ottawa-Carleton? Also, will he let the Ottawa General Hospital proceed with its plan to construct 80 additional beds?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am sure a bed will be found for a person any place in this province where there is an emergency.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The law requires it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The law requires it. I am sure many members here have been faced with this problem with their constituents. We have been able to work, not through this Legislature but with the community hospital boards and administrators in our own areas, to assist such persons to get beds. The law requires that they get them. If an emergency occurs I do not know of a hospital in this province that will not take care of the situation.

Mr. Roy: What do you say to this man if it is not an emergency?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not know the specifics of that situation, but I would suggest the situation could and should be taken care of in that particular area.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the same minister on the same issue. I am referring to the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital in my community. I would advise the minister that on October 5 seven patients had to have their surgery cancelled because there were no active treatment beds. A couple of weeks later, on October 25, two patients with serious chest pains had to wait for several hours before they could be admitted to the coronary unit. Is the minister aware that the single most serious cause of active bed shortages in our community, and I suspect in many others, is the lack of nursing home beds and chronic care beds?

In the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital there are 58 patients occupying active treatment beds who are awaiting transfer to nursing home beds or chronic care beds. Is the acting minister prepared to go back to his cabinet colleagues and rescind a decision made by the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) in September of this year which denied the request of the district health council for additional chronic care beds in the Kitchener-Waterloo area? I remind the minister that the people in my community consider it a very uneconomic restraint program to deny these kinds of beds when there is such a dramatic and serious shortage of active treatment beds.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in the allocation process we are discussing the whole matter of chronic care and nursing home bed allocations. Beds are being allocated in a number of areas of the province now. I will be glad to look into the matter of the letter. I am just acting for the minister. He must have had good reason to write that letter. I will look into it. I do not know anything about it at the moment.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that the backup which occurs in active treatment beds is because people are waiting to get chronic care, chronic care people are waiting to get into nursing homes, and people who are in nursing homes who could be out in the community do not have the support services that should be available? Until this government provides those support services and alternatives there will continue to be a backup in the hospitals of this province. When is the minister going to act at the lower levels of care to alleviate the active treatment bed problem?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my impression is that we are acting in that area now.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister explain to the House his reaction to the position of the health care sector unions that have characterized the proposed occupational health and safety regulations as nonregulation of health care facilities which could more accurately be described as a rather incomplete inventory of hazards in the health care field?

The unions see these draft regulations as no more than statements of intent which list existing problems and which do not spell out solutions or ways of implementing them. For instance, section 112 of the regulations reads, "Biological or chemical hazards that may endanger the health and safety of a worker shall be handled under controlled conditions." Does the minister not agree that by proposing such regulations the ministry is abdicating its responsibility to specify what these hazards are and how they will be controlled?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we are involved here in a consultative process. I have in my possession the letter the honourable member is referring to. The letter has been passed on to the appropriate officials in my ministry. We are looking at the advice that has been offered in that letter with considerable care and concern. We will do the same with any other letter we receive. There have been others received in addition to that one with respect to the regulations.

We are very open about it. I do not see any problem in trying to resolve the matter. We also will be holding meetings to discuss the matters further. We are very anxious to co-operate in every way.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: I was not referring to a specific letter, but I suppose the one the minister is referring to is the one from the Ottawa Civic Hospital union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees local. I realize he has received other letters as well.

Considering what the minister has said, does he agree with the statements made by CUPE locals and other health care sector unions that since these draft regulations are so vague in general, they are almost meaningless and unenforceable? If he does, will he withdraw them and appoint a task force of ministry and labour representatives to redraft regulations and to hold public hearings -- not just meetings but public hearings -- across the province to get input from both management and labour in the health care field?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is being considered. I can only repeat what I said earlier. It is all part of the consultative process. We are not locked into anything. We have not made our minds up on anything. We are anxious to get input. We solicit advice from all areas, and we will be holding tripartite meetings involving union, management and government. We are very anxious to address the concerns the member has brought forward as well as the concerns that have been brought to my attention in various letters.

FOOTBALL TELEVISION COVERAGE

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. In view of the fact that the commissioner of the Canadian Football League plans to deny the general public in southern Ontario TV access to the Hamilton-Toronto final football game this coming weekend, notwithstanding a sellout crowd, does the minister feel the same public should be subsidizing a new domed stadium for such events?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I think the substantive part of the question does not fall within my jurisdiction. I do not have jurisdiction as to whether or not there are blackouts. Personally, however, I must say that I deeply regret the fact that there is this TV blackout. I say that in spite of the fact of what the Tiger-Cats did to us in Ottawa last Sunday. I think everybody should have the chance to see this great game. It is a sellout. There are many people -- shut-ins, the elderly and people who perhaps cannot afford the price of admission -- who should also be able to see this magnificent event that is coming up this weekend. But I just think it is beyond my jurisdiction.

Mr. Kerr: I just want to say that I will tell my constituents what the minister has said, including my two illustrious constituents Messrs. Sazio and Gaudaur.

CONTRACT TENDERS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. I know he will be shocked to have a question put to him since he now occupies an apparently less influential position over there. But to you, Frank, a question.

Interjection

Mr. Speaker: Use the minister's title, please.

Mr. Conway: Pardon me. The minister's in-law over here reminds me of the correct appellation.

In recent weeks, in the course of his ministerial responsibilities, has the Minister of Industry and Trade had the opportunity to look at any contracts that were let by his predecessor the member for London South (Mr. Walker) to Matrix Communications and Donald R. Martyn and Associates? Has the minister had the opportunity in the recent past to inquire after and to see those contracts, which were the subject of a Canadian Press report some four weeks ago and about which there has been an ongoing debate in this chamber?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Conway: Given the remarkable revelation yesterday, that the minister's colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) incredibly does not see it as his responsibility to oversee the enforcement of the Manual of Administration, can the Minister of Industry and Trade explain why he has not gone out to find those contracts? Can he explain why he has not sought out those contracts?

Will the minister give an undertaking to this House that he will seek out those contracts? Will he report back not only that he has done so but also that these contracts between the government and those two consulting agencies do exist in reality and that they meet the letter and the spirit of the Ontario governments much talked of, but apparently not often applied, Manual of Administration?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure my friend knows that each minister is responsible for the actions taken by the ministry during his tenure. That will be my attitude towards the ministry itself. I have no intention of making any commitments to bring back to the House information that is properly in someone else's domain.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think it is a matter of responsibility for a minister to account for expenditures in his ministry as they are reported to the standing committee on public accounts or otherwise? Does he not think that is the only way in which this Legislature and the public can look at some of the ministries' past expenditures?

Will the minister at least give a commitment to this Legislature that this matter will be the subject of a full and complete statement by some responsible minister of this government? Or is he, like Pontius Pilate, simply going to wash his hands of the matter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, I will be before the estimates committee before too long. I will be pleased to answer all those questions I am able to answer in estimates.

NURSING HOME LAYOFFS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that because of contracting out, 92 employees of the Kennedy Lodge Nursing Home in Scarborough have been notified that their services will he no longer required as of Friday, December 16? Is this the fate to be expected by the other six homes owned by the same person?

Can the minister tell us what he is going to do to protect these dedicated workers and the thousands of other nursing home workers who now may be hurt by this growing trend?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely share the concerns that the honourable member has expressed. It is a circumstance and a situation that I neither endorse nor am very pleased about at all. As the member has stated most correctly, this is not the first; one was raised in this House just last week, although I believe this one has the greatest number of employees thus far, 92.

I am aware of it. However, it is simply a case of there not being a clause in the collective agreements that would oppose or prohibit contracting out. Until there is such a clause in the collective agreements there is nothing that can be done.

I point out also that there is no legislation in any other jurisdiction in Canada or the United States which would prohibit this from happening, because I have checked personally in this respect. Therefore, Ontario is not unique in the circumstance that is out there in the work place. I am not happy about it, I am very unhappy about it. but it is a matter that is on the record.

Mr. Mackenzie: Workers are already subjected to decreased wages through the government's restraint program, and have been denied the right to bargain for protection against contracting out over the last year because of this same government's restraint bill. They are now going to be replaced by third-party-for-hire operators who are charging $6, $7 and $8 an hour to supply personnel who will be paid $4 or $5 an hour. What is the minister going to do to stop this ripoff which is threatening the entire nursing home industry? There is surely a responsibility to those workers.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I agree that there is a responsibility to those workers. I do not deny that at all. In fact, my deputy and I met to discuss this very problem this morning. I do not have any ready solution that I can offer to the member now. All I can tell him is that it occupies a very high priority within our ministry.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I know this perhaps is not the Minister of Labour's particular aspect in this issue, but he is part of the government. Does it not bother him that he is part of a government where labour has no vested interest in the jobs in that nursing home? The owner of that nursing home, who got it for free from this government, can sell it when he is through with it for thousands of dollars per bed. Does this not bother him?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a case for the nursing homes, but it certainly appears that the ones we have looked into thus far are having great difficulty operating and some of them have the option of either contracting out or closing their doors.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. He at present, as did his predecessor, preaches the politics of restraint and preaches restraint in public expenditures. He suggests to municipalities and boards of education that they too should be involved in restraint programs. He is underfunding, in the view of the opposition and many of the public, a number of agencies, boards and other bodies because he feels restraint is the word of the day and should be practised by all these bodies.

In view of all this, is the Treasurer prepared to give an undertaking to this House that he will slash his advertising budget in Ontario, which in the last year for which I was able to find the figures was over $40 million, and in the preceding year was over $40 million?

We have not been able to get the figures this year because he will not give them to us on the order paper. When we ask the question he tells us to come to estimates, but many of the estimates are over. Will he give an undertaking to this House to practice what his government preaches, restraint, by slashing his advertising budget by at least half?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to report to my colleagues in places such as Tourism Ontario that the member thinks all advertising should be slashed by half. If we slash tourism advertising by half, my friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) will be screaming from every daily in the province that this is the last place the government should look to slash.

There are, of course, a number of other areas in which we advertise but as the Tourism critic, the member's good friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton would tell him the largest single account is tourism advertising and it is one I would say should not be significantly reduced in the restraint program. Under the aegis of my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), we have done marvellous things in protecting the tourism industry against the ravages of the last couple of years. It would be one of the most serious mistakes government could make, and I know the members colleague will speak to him afterwards about his suggestion that we cut the tourism budget by one half.

Might I also say, in terms of other programs, if the member will look at those areas where we have had an increase this year -- I have not had a chance to study them in depth -- he will find most of them are increases intended to support and publicize a new program by government. I think, for example, of the excellent renter-buy program mounted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett).

That is an important new program. It would hardly be worth allocating those kinds of dollars to the program if we did not also equip the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to inform those people who might access that particular program of the existence of the program. I am sure on balance the member will support all those advertising programs and support our excellent programs.

Mr. Bradley: The minister is aware that I am referring to the self-congratulatory political advertising his government is famous for. My question revolves around that.

Is he prepared to undertake a review of all his advertising in every department of this government to eliminate any that is unnecessary; in other words, any that does not provide hard information to the public as opposed to the ads we have in the Ministry of Energy, for instance, attempting to justify the expenditure on Suncor and other self-congratulatory ads that are there simply to promote the government?

I ask this particularly in view of the fact that we are heading into an election year next year and his government is notorious for increasing its expenditures on advertising in a pre-election year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I assure the honourable member and all of my colleagues --

Mr. Conway: Applause on both sides for that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Many of those members will not be back. They should not applaud that so quickly.

My colleagues will assure members that as we are now in the midst of the allocations for next year, every part of every budget in this government is undergoing very intense scrutiny. One of the reasons we have been able to protect our financial position and still have moneys to mount some new programs during this very difficult period of time is because no part of any budget has been saved from going through the allocation process. No part has been spared intense review inside the government. If the member will look --

Mr. Bradley: Advertising was unscathed last year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member will find that as one goes through ministry by ministry that is simply not the case.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That was a very complete answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, there is a lot more.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

WINDSOR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your assistance. I have a question for the acting Minister of Health concerning the Windsor ambulance service. I am sure the minister is aware that his ministry has ordered an internal review because of the very serious problems that exist in that ambulance service.

Because of the incidents reported in the press that have indicated there is a danger to health because of the problems in that ambulance service and the very poor morale that exists among the employees, would he not agree the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union should have been involved in developing the process for the review?

Would he not agree that in order to restore public confidence in that ambulance service, what is needed instead of a private, internal review is a public inquiry into the Windsor ambulance service because of the very serious problems that exist there?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I would not agree with that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cooke: There is one case I have brought to the minister's attention where an individual's health was put in jeopardy. There is another case I would like to bring to his attention. Is he aware that very recently a young person in Windsor had his foot cut off, was taken to a hospital and then had to be transferred to London, Ontario, and the ambulance ran out of gas at Highway 21 and Highway 401?

Does that not indicate there are some serious management problems in that ambulance service? Considering all the contract employees his ministry has fired at the end of their contract, does he not understand morale is very low and people's lives are put at risk because of no action on the part of this government? Would the minister reconsider his decision and call a public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not discounting the fact there are problems that need to be corrected. The honourable member merely asked if I would undertake some different type of review. I am satisfied we can straighten out the problem through the procedures we are now following.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: May I draw to your attention that once again today the cameras withdrew after the two leaders had their questions. As chairman of the Board of Internal Economy, is it not time you brought that matter back to the board for reconsideration, since an all-party committee of this Legislature advocated that we should have full television coverage and not be limited to the choice made by the press gallery, which is nothing beyond the leaders' leadoffs?

Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the members, I would be happy to do so.

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of six members of the Conservative caucus I am tabling a number of petitions, all of which read as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned nurses, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith."

This comes from the nurses in the Lee Manor home for the aged, the Versa-Care Centre of Owen Sound and the Owen Sound Nursing Home.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the same effect from 87 nurses representing Cornwall General Hospital, the Eastern Ontario Health Unit and the Glen-Stor-Dun Lodge.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a similar petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned nurses, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith."

As chairman of the government caucus, I am tabling this from the Ontario Nurses' Association.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned nurses, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith."

That petition is signed by 167 nurses from hospitals in the riding of Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fort William; sorry, Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) and I do not have an identity crisis, Mr. Speaker, and we do not know why you do.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned nurses, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith."

It is signed by more than 120 nurses at St. Joseph's General Hospital in Thunder Bay as well as Dawson Court Home for the Aged.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned nurses, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith."

This petition is signed by the employees of Grandview Lodge. the Thunder Bay District Health Unit and the Hogarth-Westmount Hospital.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have the following petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned nurses, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic tree collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith."

This is signed by a large number of nurses and personnel at Hotel Dieu Hospital in St. Catharines and the Shaver Hospital for Chest Diseases in St. Catharines.

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned nurses, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith."

It is signed by 105 nurses from the Haliburton-Kawartha-Pine Ridge District Health Unit representing Northumberland, Peterborough, Victoria and Peterborough-Hastings.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the following petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights arid Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This petition comes from the following schools under the jurisdiction of the Lincoln County Board of Education, Connaught Elementary School, Parnall Elementary School, Gracefield Elementary School, Sheridan Park Elementary School, St. David's/Maple Leaf Elementary School, Orchard Park Elementary School, Virgil Elementary School, Glen Ridge Elementary School, my old school of Scottlea Elementary School, the last one I taught at before I came to the Legislature, and Lockview Elementary School.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984:

Ministry administration program, $6,468,300; conventional energy program, $3,170,500; alternative and renewable energy program, $19,639,900; energy conservation program, $22,321,700; regulatory affairs program, $2,639,400; energy investment program, $83,000,000.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Pollock and Mr. Hennessy exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

MEMBERS' MAIL

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would deliver to you an unstamped envelope addressed, "The Honourable Member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario," and bearing in the upper left-hand corner, "200 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2L1, Canada."

I believe this was delivered to and found its way into the individual members' mailboxes. I do not understand the rules by which access to individual members' mailboxes is obtained. I would appreciate it if you would consider this matter and advise the assembly at your early convenience.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 90, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, when we last adjourned this debate I was on my feet outlining the plight of a number of my constituents with regard to assessment under the Assessment Act and the reason we in this party, and I in particular, oppose the section that would allow the ministry not to send out notices of assessment if that assessment has not changed.

I believe I can wind my remarks up within 20 minutes. However, now that I have the files available to me and I am not having to search my memory, I would like to put on the record the very real hardship this would work upon three or four of my constituents who have had a reassessment under the old section 86, now the new section 63.

Upon adjournment, I believe I was talking of the case of Michael Hedican. I simply want to read into the record his location, his complaint number and his roll number. His roll number was 58-04-010-005-001-00-0000, region 32, hearing 123, I believe it was, complaint 03-02181. Mr. Hedican appealed the assessment that was assessed against his property at 369 Pearl Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 1E9. As you will remember from the discussion last week, Mr. Speaker, that is at the corner of Pearl and Banning Street.

The assessment was in excess of the amount Mr. Hedican paid for the property in 1983 when it was advertised for $43,500. He bought it for $39,500. The assessed value of the property was in excess of that. One of the complaints Mr. Hedican has is that properties that were taken as apparently parallel or equal properties were not from the same area at all.

One has to understand Thunder Bay to realize that this area, which is about a block and a half away from where I live, is the most densely populated area in the municipality of Thunder Bay. Properties as far away as five or six blocks, on Bay Street, for example, simply are not parallel or equal in value in terms of revenue homes, as this one admittedly is, in terms of two apartments in a very small house with the back of the property being rented out.

I draw this case to the ministry's attention and I hope he will realize the injustice of the assessment against Mr. Hedican's property. What he found frustrating, and I think a number of my constituents found frustrating, was that the decision after the hearing simply reads "realty assessment confirmed." No reasons were given, no explanations, no nothing. In any kind of due process, that seems to me to be entirely unreasonable.

If Mr. Hedican wants to take it to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, he can do this at expense to himself and probably with the expense of legal representation. This seems to me to be terribly stupid and unjust. Certainly, this is one of the reasons the list and the assessed value should go out, so that if people like Mr. Hedican wish to appeal again, they should be notified of the opportunity. Perhaps the ministry will have a change of heart.

The other case I mentioned last week was the case of Nick Prsa of 212 Camelot Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario. I want to get on the record the actual roll number, region, hearing and complaint number. I believe I discussed this in some detail last week. I simply want to recap by indicating that once again the value assessed against his business, which is two blocks from downtown Port Arthur where the urban renewal takes place, is in my view unjust because he is far from the walk-in traffic that occurs in the Keskus shopping mall, which is downtown Port Arthur.

As he says in a number of letters to me and to others, he has had to provide a lot of extra protection for his home and for his property. He happens to run a radio and television business and the components of those things are often subject to break-ins. I want to read into the record a little letter he wrote to the assessment department:

"Dear Sir:

"Re roll No. 58-04-010-039-001-00-0000:" -- actually, it sounds almost like the amount he was assessed -- "The above property is assessed too much. We built and completed our building in 1980. Cost of building was exactly $120,000. Property was purchased, 1976-77, when market values were at their highest for $48,000; total, $168,000.

"How come assessments are down on Red River Road, which is the main centre of Thunder Bay north? I am located three blocks north of centre of Red River Road and our assessment went up at the time when the value of property and building went down. We have no walk-in business traffic because we are too far from the centre. We have no police protection, otherwise I would not be broken into so many times. Being next to a hotel parking lot, I have lots of broken bottles and paper to pick up from our property every morning. Commercial rent is a lot lower here than on Red River Road."

I mentioned last week that he rents out one of two units in that small building. As he points out, the commercial rent is in fact much lower in the property he can rent out than the property they can rent out in the Keskus shopping mall, which stands half-empty I might point out.

"I am hoping that you will consider a reassessment on our property. Thank you very much.

"Yours very truly."

He went to the assessment hearing and got the same kind of notice that was given to Mr. Hedican. The realty assessment was confirmed. He was good enough to go back into his records and dig up the tax bills he paid. As I argued last week, this is the only point at which people realize -- and a number of people both in homes and in businesses may be relatively unsophisticated when it comes to assessment -- this is when he realizes he is paying double the taxes he was paying before reassessment, that his taxes have escalated from something in the order of $3,500 to something in excess of $8,000.

That seems to me to be entirely uncalled for and unjust. That is the kind of reassessment, the kind of taxation, that gives market value assessment or whatever one wants to call it a very bad name indeed. It gives the whole process a very bad name and it makes a mockery of the so-called appeal system.

Nevertheless, I point out that the main case I wanted to bring to the House -- and I think those cases are extremely important -- is the case of Mr. Ugo Cordone of 87 Minot Avenue, Thunder Bay, Ontario. When Mr. Cordone brought this to my attention I wrote to the assessment people in Thunder Bay and in Sault Ste. Marie. They were extremely co-operative and extremely friendly, that is the people at that level in the assessment offices.

3:50 p.m.

They wrote a letter of explanation to Mr. Cordone. He missed appealing simply because when he got his assessment notice, it pointed out very clearly that it was not a taxation notice. It was not until he actually received his taxation notice that he realized how much the value of his property had jumped on the equalized market value assessment.

I talked to him several times. Mr. Cordone is one of those people we talk about as being the salt of the earth. He genuinely wants to pay his fair share of taxes. He feels he has been unfairly assessed. By the time he came to see me at the end of August it was too late to appeal. I said to him: "Well, Mr. Cordone, I will help you with your appeal next time. When you get the notice next time, come and see me. We will go through the procedure and see if we can get it down for you." But because of this bill, he will not get a notice. When the hell is he supposed to know the time limits within which he can appeal?

I would point out that if nothing else happens, the mandarins under the gallery there should take notice and send him a specific notice if the minister's amendment goes through. It is surely the right of any taxpayer in this province to have the right to an appeal. By taking away the notice to these people. in particular those in Thunder Bay who missed the right of appeal the last time, the government is denying them due process. I consider that very serious indeed.

If, by some misadventure, Mr. Cordone is not notified of his assessment in the coming year, the minister has seen nothing yet in the way of debate when it comes to the next time any kind of property tax or assessment bill comes into this Legislature, because I have committed myself to Mr. Cordone, as have the ministry officials, that he will receive a notice and that he will have the chance of appeal in the next round. If that is denied him, I say that justice has not been done in this province.

Finally, I want to bring to the attention of the assembly and to the minister the case of Mr. Walter Seeber of Thunder Bay. who happens to own a mobile home court in Thunder Bay. He makes his case very well in a letter he wrote to me which I will simply read. I believe it is self-explanatory. I will then have one or two comments on the situation and will wind up by, I would think, four o'clock on the clock but perhaps a minute or two later on the digital watch on the wall.

Mr. Nixon: We get the message. Thank you very much.

Mr. Breaugh: We try to be organized.

Mr. Foulds: Was I, like the Premier (Mr. Davis), being interjected at there? I was not really trolling for interjections the way the Premier does in order to prolong his speech.

The letter reads:

"Dear Mr. Foulds:

"I am a landlord in the sense only that I own the land on which mobile homes have been placed. Such mobile homes are owned and occupied by others. Each mobile home owner upon entry into our park signs an agreement stating that the park owner is responsible for all taxes relating to the land and the mobile home owner is responsible for taxes relating to his dwelling.

"Prior to 1983, the Lakehead Board of Education and the Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board levied to their respective supporters a flat rate of $100 per annum." That should be in these mobile homes.

"Every six months or so I received a list of occupants (mobile homeowners) from the board of education asking me to update with respect to homes that have moved out of the park or change of ownership of homes in the park.

"I corrected any changes by giving the new address of the vacating owner and the name of the new owner-occupant. However, six months later I received a request to update a new list and report changes if any. To my dismay, I discovered that my formerly corrected list of mobile home owners residing in my park had not been acknowledged by the board of education. I am sorry to say that this worthless exercise occurred several times, and I must assume that my corrected mobile home owner list ended up in a waste-basket in the office of the Lakehead Board of Education or the tax collector's office.

"I believe that because of the general ineptitude of the tax collector to collect his taxes from some mobile home owners, the decision was made to push the burden not only of collecting such taxes but to actually make responsible for payment of such taxes no one else but the so-called landlord. The decision to throw the burden of responsibility at the landlord occurred simultaneously with the decision of the assessment office to assess separately each individual mobile home within the park for tax purposes.

"In December 1982, I received an assessment notice listing all the mobile homes and owners' names in my park, plus assessed value of each individual home. No letter of explanation was included. I ignored this notice since it obviously had nothing to do with me. In fact, I believe that mobile home owners had received their own assessment notice and could therefore lodge a complaint themselves with the assessment office if they felt the assessment improper.

"On June 13, 1983, I received a tax notice from the Lakehead Board of Education with a request that I pay taxes based on a total assessment of" -- I think it is $30,260,000; it cannot be, but it must be more than $30,000, probably $302,000. At any rate, the point he is making is that he was asked to pay taxes based on the total value of the property and the homes.

"I immediately phoned the Lakehead Board of Education for an explanation. I then started my correspondence with the board of education."

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member did have a target for concluding his remarks, I trust.

Mr. Foulds: I had a little consultation with my learned colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), Mr. Speaker.

"In closing, I wish to point out under the new assessment scheme taxes have increased from $100 to the highest-taxed home of $193.87, which is an increase of 93.87 per cent, to the lowest-taxed home" -- on this particular mobile home property -- of $108.85, an increase of 8.85 per cent, to the average-taxed home of $147.19, which is an increase of 47.19 per cent.

"It is inconceivable that I should be held responsible for other people's tax obligations."

It is signed by Walter Seeber of Copenhagen Mobile Home Corp.

I find it very strange that somehow under the Assessment Act a man can be held responsible for paying the taxes of property he does not own. I do not understand that. I simply do not understand how in the laws of this country a man can be held responsible for the payment of taxes on property he does not own. I would like someone in the assessment office or in the Ministry of Revenue, or the minister, to explain that to me.

Mr. Seeber has received letters from the tax collector, Mr. P. Karkkainen, which say categorically that the landlord is responsible for payment of taxes applied; but he is the landlord of the property only, he is not the landlord of the homes.

4 p.m.

According to the correspondence he shared with me, which I would be glad to share with the ministry, he is being charged taxation on the entire amount of the property value of all the homes and the property. I simply think that is unfair.

In one of his letters to Mr. Poulter of the Lakehead Board of Education, he simply says: "In your July 7, 1983, letter you make the following statement, and I quote: 'We regret the inconvenience this is causing you, but the imposition of the assessments was not within our control and our taxes are based upon relative assessments.'

"My dear sir, if by some twist of justice I should be held responsible I can assure you that it is more than just an inconvenience on my part, it is bankruptcy."

With those few remarks this afternoon, I wanted to put those cases on the record, bring them directly to the minister's attention and indicate to him why it is absolutely necessary that Bill 90 should not be passed in its present form. I think those four cases illustrate my point extremely adequately.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on the bill. The bill has been debated at some length in a quite extemporaneous way. I think that in itself should impress upon the minister the concerns which members of the assembly on all sides of the House have about the assessment process in general and about this piece of legislation in particular.

I congratulate the minister on his appointment to a full cabinet responsibility as a member of the executive council in charge of this ministry. I would hope that my congratulations could be coupled in due course with his sense that he would like to erect a monument to himself in Ontario as having dealt with the question of the fairness of the assessment process in every aspect.

I had expected and hoped, and I look forward to the minister welcoming, as I expect will be the case, that this bill will be able to go out to committee so that we can bring to the attention of the minister the concerns which ordinary citizens have about the assessment process.

I have two or three specific concerns about the bill that is in front of us.

The first concern I have is that this piecemeal amendment of a particular section seems to me, just as a matter of clarity of process, to leave a lot to be desired. For example, the provision that is being amended, which provides now that assessment notices will be sent out only when changes are proposed, does not bring clearly to the attention of the assembly the optional nature of the requirement of the assessment commissioner, "to deliver with a notice required, or to publish in a newspaper, particulars with respect to the last date for appealing the assessment, the times and places where the assessment roll may be examined and discussed with the assessment commissioner or an assessor, any significant and unusual change in the amount of the assessment and any other information which in the opinion of the assessment commissioner is desirable."

We now have a situation where a change can be made in an assessment of a particular piece of property, a notice can be sent out simply advising what the assessment will be without bearing any reference whatsoever to the change, and then it is entirely up to the assessment commissioner whether or not he includes the notice giving particulars of the changes which have been made and about the right to appeal.

As an alternative to that, he may publish it in a newspaper of general circulation, which I think would be quite an inadequate method of advising persons whether it is going to be a selective process of assessment change. It would be a quite inadequate method of making provision for that notice to reach the person whose property is reassessed.

Then it contains this most unusual statement: "... but any failure to send such notice does not affect the validity of the assessment." It seems to me that is the crux of some of the concerns expressed when this minister's predecessor dealt with assessments, particularly in the areas represented by the riding of Riverdale, wards 7 and 8, in that bull-headed way of his.

It seems to me the ministry should have been aware that one cannot amend this bill in a piecemeal fashion. I therefore welcome the possibility that the bill will get out to committee so these matters can be brought home to the minister, not only in the process he wishes to establish in the statute but also in the whole process by which changes are made.

The second point relates to the significant exception which will continue to exist. I refer to the proposed amendment to section 63 of the bill, providing that where it is inequitable with respect to the assessment of similar real property in the vicinity the assessor may alter the assessment to make it equitable. This raises questions of responsibility, burden of proof, the process of the assessment review procedure and the whole process by which appeals take place under the Assessment Act.

I hope in committee sufficient representations will be brought to the attention of the minister that he will consider establishing a special committee to review the law. I do not mean reviewing it with respect to quantum of assessment but with respect to the whole process, which leaves very much to be desired regarding its fairness and its adequacy. It should be reviewed as to the extent it impinges upon the access of individuals to the assessment process.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully and with great interest to the thoughtful contributions of the honourable members opposite as they addressed the general purposes of the bill.

I would like to respond briefly to some of the more relevant points they raised. I will begin with my response to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), who I am sorry to see is not here today. I note his party supports the bill in principle. I also note they agree that the section 63 reassessment program is widely accepted and working well in many municipalities throughout Ontario.

The member asked me how the program is working in the 389 municipalities that have been reassessed to date. Since becoming Minister of Revenue, I have spent a great deal of time examining exactly this question just for my own information. I concluded that the section 63 program is working extremely well in meeting its objectives of providing municipalities with more equitable, consistent and, more important, defensible property tax bases.

This is demonstrated in aggregate terms by the fact that since 1979 almost two thirds of all municipalities have implemented a reassessment based on market value, either by section 63 or proclamation. How the section 63 reassessment program has worked in individual cases can best be described with the following example.

In Waterloo, the city council requested implementation of a section 63 reassessment program for taxation in 1982. The program was well received by both councillors and ratepayers. Some 401 ratepayers attended the open house sessions to review their new assessments with staff from the regional assessment office. An additional 298 ratepayers contacted the office directly to obtain information concerning their assessments.

In the first year of its reassessment, 1,516 appeals were filed and received reductions in assessment amounting to less than one per cent of the total rateable assessment base. All in all, it was a very successful and well received program.

4:10 p.m.

Second, I want to comment on what the member for Waterloo North said about the information we supply to municipalities to assist them in making their decision on whether to implement section 63. In particular, he was concerned about why we do not give municipal councils information on individual properties.

The reason is very straightforward. He is correct that the detailed tax impact studies do not include information on individual properties but only aggregate data for each property class within the wards of the municipality.

If individual property information were provided and council decided not to proceed with the reassessment, then those people whose properties were identified as being overassessed could then appeal their assessment for reductions. A tax shift would then occur through the courts.

Moreover, this tax shift would not be restricted within a property class, simply because municipalities would move to recover the resulting tax losses by increasing mill rates across the board. Similarly, any commercial-industrial tax reduction could fall unfairly on residential taxpayers.

In other words, by not identifying individual properties, we provide municipalities with a clear choice to proceed with section 63 without causing massive disturbances in the event they decide not to proceed. Viewed in this way, I am sure the member will agree with our policy of not detailing every property.

Last, the member for Waterloo North requested information respecting my ministry's information campaign which is conducted in the latter part of the year in support of the return of assessment rolls across Ontario. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) also commented on the matter of my ministry's information campaign.

I want to assure members that our advertising is restricted to providing ratepayers with essential information. In no way can it be construed as political. For example, last year the ministry spent approximately $260,000 in newspaper advertisements. This year, it is our intention to repeat our ads in all the dailies and weeklies as well as the French and ethnic press to advise ratepayers of the following information.

The ads will inform ratepayers of the schedule of assessment open houses and the times and locations where they will be held, that information on people's assessments will be available for review at these open houses and that assessment notices have been mailed only to those ratepayers where change has occurred to any of the recorded information on last year's notice or where they appealed their assessments last year.

As well, these advertisements will inform ratepayers that the assessment rolls will be available for review in municipal offices after December 20. Finally, the ads will detail the process for filing appeals with the assessment review board and inform ratepayers that the final day for filing appeals is January 10, 1984.

To further inform ratepayers of their rights to appeal, a second series of ads in all dailies, weeklies, French and ethnic press will be placed prior to the final date for filing appeals, January 10, 1984. Our efforts in the 111 ethnic newspapers were in direct response to a request by the city of Toronto. The cost of this year's information campaign to support the return of assessment rolls across Ontario will be approximately $350,000.

I would now like to respond to some of the other comments by the member for Oshawa. He has suggested that many municipalities have looked at the section 63 program and concluded it would not benefit them very much. This generalization does not conform with our experience and therefore requires some clarification.

The section 63 program is designed to generate the same amount of taxes that each property class raised before the reassessment occurred. In other words, section 63 reassessment does not generate either more or fewer tax dollars. It simply redistributes the current tax burden more equitably and consistently within each property class.

It is not designed to be nor is it in practice a money-maker, but it does produce defensible assessments which will prevent significant tax losses through the courts which municipalities otherwise would suffer with their old assessment systems. This is a very important fact motivating municipal councils to adopt section 63 reassessment.

Equally important, and in the same context as the comments of the member for Oshawa, market value happens to be a concept that is readily understood by ratepayers and allows them to compare their assessment with similar properties.

I would now like to acknowledge the well- practised comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who is always a delight to listen to. I thoroughly enjoyed him the other night. I did not agree with him, but I thoroughly enjoyed him.

I wish to clarify that the section 63 program purposely has limited but very important objectives. However, the matter of addressing tax class differentials and other property tax policy issues, which can be termed property tax reform, generally is a more long-term objective that only can be realistically addressed by a step-by-step approach to allow progress to be fitted to the circumstances and needs of individual municipalities.

In this regard, it is this government's view, which is endorsed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and others, that the section 63 program represents the first important step towards an equitable and consistent property assessment system for Ontario's municipalities.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and other members opposite have suggested with respect to section 2 of the bill that the city of Toronto wishes to voice its concern. While we know the mayor of Toronto is on record as opposing section 2 of the bill, I would like members to know that both the executive and fiscal policy committees of AMO have expressed their support for section 2.

As I said earlier, I would like to respond to the comments of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and others on the matter of assessment appeals in the city of Toronto. However, before turning to the specifics of appeals, I wish to express my surprise at the extreme terms used by the member for Bellwoods to describe property assessors in Metropolitan Toronto. Throughout his statement, he referred to property assessors as storm-troopers and jack-booted goon squads who blitzkrieg neighbourhoods, vending their prejudices and generally spreading terror with uncontrolled abandon. He actually said those things.

Such intemperate remarks are quite silly. They are hardly conducive to any measured discussion of the substantive issues involved. Under normal circumstances, I would not even bother to comment on such utterances except that they are, unfortunately, symptomatic of a rather nasty tendency to win cheap debating points by invective rather than facts.

Mr. Martel: He is imputing motives, Mr. Speaker. You should ask him to withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker: With all due respect to the member and his comments, I sense that if the comments being recorded by the minister are true, there is somewhat of an even draw in the intemperance of the remarks made and being made.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: If they offend the member, I will certainly withdraw those remarks.

Mr. McClellan: At least I write my own invective.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: One can tell by listening to it that he does.

I now intend to deal with a number of the more serious points raised. Not that the points raised by the member for Bellwoods were not serious; they were just inane. They were raised by the member for Bellwoods with respect to recent residential assessment increases in the city of Toronto.

First, he suggested that assessors went to specific areas of the city such as the east end and then to the west end. He implied the ministry targeted areas in the city for special attention. This is quite incorrect. In fact, last year 384,000 single-family residential properties were visited in Metropolitan Toronto for inspection purposes. Only 103,000 of these residential inspections occurred in the city of Toronto.

The member for Bellwoods said there were 4,510 single-family properties reassessed in Toronto in 1982 for 1983 taxation. In fact, the visitations resulted in 6,941 properties having their assessments changed, and 4,510 of these reflected increases in assessment as a result of alterations, additions or renovations of more than $2,500 in market value.

4:20 p.m.

The member for Bellwoods has echoed a charge heard from some members of the city of Toronto council that this government has undertaken a campaign of imposing market value reassessment through the back door again. This is not true.

These updates and assessments were, in fact, part of an ongoing assessment maintenance function that is occurring in every municipality in Ontario. Last year, there were over 161,000 assessment changes throughout Ontario, which represented 5.1 per cent of all properties.

In the city of Toronto, there were 6,941 assessment changes, which represented five per cent of all properties in the city of Toronto. This obviously demonstrates that the city of Toronto has not been singled out for special treatment. In fact, many municipalities had a much higher percentage of properties reassessed.

Once again, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has fully supported this ongoing program of updating assessments to reflect the increases in value resulting from additions and renovations. Many major municipalities have supported this measure as being essential to maintaining their assessment rolls.

The member for Bellwoods suggested that last year there were literally thousands of people in Toronto who received assessment increases and did not appeal them because they did not understand and were not aware of the appeal process. As I said before, the 4,510 property owners whose assessments were increased received assessment notices and direct information from my ministry advising them of their assessment increases, the open house sessions, the appeals procedures and the final date for appeal. In addition, the ministry advertised in the daily and weekly newspapers and the 111 ethnic newspapers in Metro Toronto to advise them of this information.

Notwithstanding all of this information, the city of Toronto council decided to instruct its staff to write to every one of these 4,510 property owners to encourage them to appeal their assessment increases and to advise them that help from the city was available in the preparation of their appeals. In that regard, seminars were held throughout the city, two of which were conducted in Italian and Portuguese. Of the 4,510 properties receiving assessment increases, only 1,009 appeals were actually filed with the Assessment Review Board.

The member for Bellwoods has been led to believe by his New Democratic Party colleagues on Toronto city council that assessors have changed the rules of the game respecting appeals. His party friends from the city council in Toronto have told him that, all of a sudden, a new measure of comparison has been introduced by the appeal proceedings; namely, assessment per square foot basis of comparison. His pals from that city tell him --

Mr. Foulds: "Pals?" Is that parliamentary?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I think so.

Mr. Foulds: He doesn't have any pals.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: That does not surprise me.

Mr. McClellan: Whose side are you on?

Mr. Foulds: He has friends.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Those friends of his, or acquaintances or whatever they are --

Mr. McClellan: They are friends.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Those friends from city council tell him they have never heard of such a concept.

Mr. Boudria: The minister needs a new speechwriter.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the minister continue with his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I am being harassed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClellan: He is reading unnecessarily from a document, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Only because I am trying to speak very slowly so the member will understand. If he would try to read my lips, we would really get through.

Unfortunately, the member has been seriously misled. I can demonstrate this by the following reference to this so-called new measure.

"Sometimes instead of using the ratio of assessment to market value, assessors will use the amount of assessment per square foot. If possible, you should do your calculations in square footage terms as well so that you can present your case in either mode. For square footage you do exactly the same thing as you did before.

"Find out what the assessment per square foot is for each of your comparable properties. Take the average and compare this to your property."

Mr. McClellan: How much did this speech cost? I hope it was cheap.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: "If your property is higher, then you have been unfairly assessed."

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bellwoods may wish to inform his buddies on Toronto city council --

Mr. Foulds: Buddies? Come on, friends.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Anyway, whatever they are, he might like to inform them where to find this reference. The reference is on page 17 in the booklet entitled Assessment Appeal Seminar Information. This booklet was prepared by their own consultants and published by the city of Toronto and distributed to all ratepayers attending their seminars.

In response to the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), I acknowledge he has done a considerable amount of work in preparing his analysis of condominium assessments in Etobicoke. I passed that information on to my staff and requested a detailed report.

I listened carefully, as I always do, to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). As I indicated to him in my letter of September 15, 1983, the Sudbury Board of Education can apply for a section 63 reassessment which will correct the problem of education tax inequities. However, to date we have not had a response from the board.

I listened with particular attention to the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton). He is clearly knowledgeable about assessment and, as a result, his comments were thoughtful and measured, although somewhat intemperate the other night. The members opposite will recall the member dealt at some length with the assessment changes resulting from the section 63 reassessment in Hamilton in 1979. In doing so, however, he touched on only certain areas in the city of Hamilton. The member also restricted his comments to assessment and tax increases. To say the least, the result is a rather selective and unbalanced view of the section 63 process.

In terms of his expressed concern for home owners, it is understandable that the member is worried about tax increases for some people under the section 63 program. However, he should also explain why other home owners should not have their taxes decreased either. Unfortunately, the member for Hamilton Mountain did not explain how he would conduct the reassessment so that, magically, there would be only tax reductions and no increases.

In regard to his particular criticisms of the section 63 program, I think it is worth while to introduce a few facts he did not mention. First, the member must agree that the extent of the assessment in tax changes under section 63 is strictly controlled. Underassessed properties are increased only to the extent that they pay taxes equal to the taxes already paid by the vast majority of their neighbours, and more particularly to allow reductions to those home owners who have been paying more than their fair share for years.

Second, municipalities have the option to phase in tax increases as a result of a section 63 reassessment. Here it is instructive to note that of the 389 municipalities that have requested implementation to date, only two municipalities have thought it was necessary to phase in the changes. Presumably the main reason the other municipalities have not done so is that by phasing in tax increases for underassessed properties it becomes necessary to further delay reductions for people who were previously overtaxed.

A third area of concern to the member was tax increases in the Hamilton Mountain area, where he commented on tax increases in general resulting from the section 63 reassessment, as well as particular hardships to owners of veterans administration lots. On his first concern, he referred to tax increases of up to 5,000 per cent.

Without belittling the problems of these rate- payers, it would be useful if he had used real dollar figures. For example, there was a property on the mountain that had an assessment of $61 and taxes of $9.03 prior to reassessment. This was a half-acre lot. The assessment on this property increased by 6,500 per cent to $4,190 and the taxes to $691.

When that extremely low assessment of $61 was placed on that property in the early 1950s, there were no municipal services. In 1979 the property was fully serviced. Its market value and corresponding assessment reflected that fact.

Mr. Charlton: Check your facts. They are not right.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I would rather trust my sources than the member's.

Certainly the early tax load of $9 was unrealistic and to depict this tax increase in percentage terms is somewhat misleading, to say the least. I shall now turn to the member's concern for --

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: one cannot accuse another member of being misleading.

The Deputy Speaker: I believe I heard the minister use the word "misleading."

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Could I read that? Maybe if the member will follow my lips he will understand. It says here, "Certainly the earlier tax load of $9 was unrealistic and to depict this tax increase in percentage terms is somewhat misleading, to say the least."

Mr. Foulds: That is accusing another member of being misleading, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I have said it twice; take out one and then we are even, all right?

The Deputy Speaker: I would just make the comment that specifically there is no reference to a specific member as I heard it, but it might help the minister in the wrapup of his comments if he simply said the figure was misleading. If you could just avoid the provocativeness, and the members over here could give you the same courtesy as I have noticed you extended to them for the closure of the subject.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was very enlightening. I know exactly what I should do now and what I should not.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Now you withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I was not instructed to withdraw anything. I now turn, Mr. Speaker, to the members' concern for veterans administration lots.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday my leader used the word "liar" and was forced to withdraw it. He was not even accusing anyone. Now you are allowing a minister to say that a member is somewhat misleading. I want to suggest to you rather strongly that the minister cannot do that. You should ask him to withdraw because he has not seen that you are attempting graciously to get him to withdraw. Maybe if you hit him with a sledgehammer or something, you would get his attention to what you are after.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the minister is aware of the rules of the House. He cannot impute misleading to anyone, but I distinctly heard him refer to the figure being misleading.

Mr. Foulds: No, no, he said to do so. If you want a lesson in grammar, Mr. Speaker, that happens to be a gerundial infinitive, the subject of which is the person who is referred to in that section about which he is talking.

The Deputy Speaker: I suppose we can be as technical as we wish. Does the minister want to clarify that he has no intentions --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I think you have ruled that I have not said anything that identifies anyone, unless the gentleman who made these statements wishes to be called an "it." There is some question; maybe there is some validity to that, I do not know.

Mr. Wildman: We agreed he has not said anything.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I will now turn to the members concern for veterans administration lots. The facts are that altogether there are 35 such properties and they --

Mr. Martel: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be mean, but he is going to withdraw and he is going to withdraw in the same manner Mr. Speaker makes us withdraw. Just apply the rules uniformly.

The Deputy Speaker: In response to the member for Sudbury East, if you find that comment unparliamentary -- and we have heard this bandied about this afternoon -- perhaps we could get along if the minister could clarify that he did not wish to attach that suspicion to any other honourable member.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I have read that particular clause twice now. If the opposition is still of the impression that they have been maligned, it would be my pleasure to withdraw that clause. I would ask you, though, to read it over in Hansard -- it undoubtedly will appear in the Instant Hansard -- and give me a report on whether in fact I did malign anyone.

The Deputy Speaker: Let the minister proceed.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I could be all day. If the members want to fool around, that is fine.

Talking about veterans administration lots, altogether there are 35 such properties. As a result of the reassessment their assessments increased by 300 per cent. This can be illustrated by one typical case in which the assessment increased from $3,410 in 1978 to $10,140 in 1979, while the taxes increased from $504 to $1,673. On first sight, these are impressive increases; however, account should be taken of a number of other important facts.

On the one hand, these properties have not been assessed since 1951. In the meantime they have become fully serviced with municipal water, sewer and other services which justified an increase in assessment of taxes. On the other hand, members will be interested to know that whereas these lots were unused except for the dwelling sites, 30 of the 35 properties are now being farmed. As a result of being reclassified as farm land, their assessment has been reduced. In the case of my earlier example, the assessment has been cut from $10,140 to $4,826 in 1983, with a corresponding tax cut from $1,673 to $1,047.

Two further points should be noted. Since 1978, the mill rate has increased in Hamilton by 47 per cent to 217 in 1983 so that not all the tax increase is due to increased assessment. Further, it is interesting that the tax of $1,047 on this property is still below the average tax of $1,100 on home owners in Hamilton.

Finally on this point, in talking about increases it is significant that the member for Hamilton Mountain, and indeed all the opposition members who have criticized the section 63 program, made no mention at all of the government's income tax credits and grants paid to offset property taxes. In fact, as he well knows, the first $500 of property taxes is paid for all senior citizens and low-income people, and not just to home owners but to renters as well.

It should be noted that in addition to 389 municipalities we have successfully reassessed for the first time under section 63 since 1979, 11 municipalities have already implemented updates under this provision, while another 26 are considering coming on stream for 1983. Such requests for updates are another measure of the basic soundness and effectiveness of the voluntary section 63 reassessment program.

The member for Hamilton Mountain went on at great length about the need for everyone to receive an assessment notice. It was his view that without such notices neighbours would not be able to compare their assessments because the assessment offices would not give them the assessment of their neighbour's property. I have discussed this with my staff and it is true that up to this time when someone called the assessor did not answer general questions on other people's assessments but directed such inquiries to the appropriate municipal office.

This arrangement was perfectly satisfactory because municipalities had the necessary information to handle such requests; that is, a certified copy of the assessment roll. Also, it was usually the case that ratepayers wanted to talk about property taxes and municipal services as well as assessment.

Mr. Martel: This is a filibuster.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr. Foulds: It is the first time he has had a chance to make a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: It is nothing like the five hours you took.

I want the member for Hamilton Mountain to know that in the light of the provisions of section 2 of the bill, I have instructed my staff to take steps to ensure that anyone can contact our regional assessment offices to get the assessment on any property for comparison purposes. Of course, we have always provided this service in the more than 1,100 open houses held annually throughout Ontario.

Second, the member for Hamilton Mountain misunderstands how the provisions of the bill will affect those ratepayers who appealed their assessment last year. In conjunction with the provisions of section 2 of the bill, my ministry will send notices to all those ratepayers who appealed their assessments last year. The information insert accompanying these notices will contain a special note to ratepayers -- and the members opposite should pay particular attention to this, I quote directly from the insert:

"If your previous assessment is presently under appeal at the time you receive this notice or if this notice does not reflect the most recent decision of the board, it is necessary that you again register an appeal with the Assessment Review Board against this assessment."

My ministry will also be sending out notices to every owner and tenant when a municipality has opted for a reassessment under the section 63 program.

I would like to respond now to the comments made by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) respecting the appeal of his assessment on his home in Maplewood Estates in the township of Cumberland. He told us in great detail of his experiences before the Assessment Review Board and how disappointed he was when the chairman of the Assessment Review Board confirmed his assessment.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, he offered to sell his house to me for the amount of the assessment. Like any good perspective buyer, I have investigated his proposal.

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Prescott-Russell on a point of order.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is going to quote me in this House, I wish he would be accurate. That was not what I said to him the other day. If he will review Hansard, he will find out exactly what I did say. It was not that. I offered to sell him my home for the proportionate value of the reassessment for the market value and not the actual market value.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Just as a point of interest, I am not interested in his house, thank you.

Mr. Boudria: Well, if he can't read Hansard --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Really, frankly, I am not really interested in his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, after that, the party went downhill and there was not very much from anybody's side.

Referring today to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) who read some cases he has, I urge him to send us the information and we will look into them. If there are any inaccuracies or injustices, certainly they will be rectified. I urge him to send them along to me. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) also had a couple of points which will be considered in committee later on today or at another time.

If the members are tired of listening to the answers to their questions, I cannot blame them; the questions were not any fun either.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on social development.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the social development committee is sitting next Monday and there have been some arrangements so that it can be dealt with at that time.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Gregory asks for clarification. Perhaps one of the House leaders might answer.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Could I then ask permission to waive the five-day period, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Hon. Mr. Gregory asks for permission to waive the five-day period. Is that agreed?

Mr. McClellan: No, no.

The Deputy Speaker: It will have to be unanimous.

House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL AND METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration of Bill 86, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional and Metropolitan Municipalities.

On section 7:

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rotenberg): Mr. Swart moves that section 7 of Bill 86 be amended to read:

"Subsection 39(1) of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, being chapter 441 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the Sudbury Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by resolution of the regional council; and

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Do any members wish to speak to this amendment?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Shall the vote be stacked? Is it agreed to stack it until 10:15 p.m.?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Chairman: Is it agreed to stack it until 5:45 p.m.?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Chairman: We do not have unanimous consent.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart's amendment to section 7, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes, 37; nays, 55.

Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 8 of Bill 86 be amended to read as follows:

"Subsection 110(1) of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, being chapter 442 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the Waterloo Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by resolution of the regional council; and,

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, this amendment does to the Waterloo act what all of the other amendments did to the other regional municipalities. I am not going to take any time to put forth all the arguments that have already been stated on numerous occasions, except to say this will improve the operation of the police force in the Waterloo area.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is very difficult to hear the chair, let alone other members, because of the clamour in the chamber.

Mr. Chairman: The member's point of order is well taken. I would ask the members again if they could be quiet as they move about the chamber.

We were asking the House whether there is unanimous agreement to stack for 10:15 this evening.

Vote stacked.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 9 of Bill 86 be amended to read as follows:

"Subsection 112(1) of the Regional Municipality of York Act, being chapter 443 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) The board of commissioners of police known as the York Regional Board of Commissioners of Police is continued and shall consist of,

"(a) three members of the regional council appointed by resolution of the regional council; and,

"(b) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

All those in favour of Mr. Swart's amendment to section 9 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Section 10 agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, following the passage of section 10, I would like to move an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that Bill 86 be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"10a.--(1) Subject to subsection (2), on and after January 1, 1985, the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police shall be composed of:

"(a) the chairman of the metropolitan council;

"(b) one member of the metropolitan council appointed by the metropolitan council;

"(c) one member of the council of each area municipality, not a member of metropolitan council, appointed by the area municipality;

"(d) nine members, not members of any area municipality council, appointed by the metropolitan council; and

"(e) two members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council

"(2) In making any appointments under subsection (1), regard shall be had to the cultural, racial, social and economic complexity of Metropolitan Toronto to ensure that the metropolitan board reflects that complexity."

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it will not be necessary for me to elaborate at length on this proposed amendment to the bill as we talked about it and gave the reasons why we wished this amendment to be passed at the time of the bill's second reading.

I think the purpose is quite obvious. The existing board, and the board as it will be in Metropolitan Toronto when section 10, which we have just passed, comes into force, is much too small to represent in any meaningful way a metropolitan area that comprises not only a large geographic area, but also has within its boundaries a large population of diverse interests, backgrounds and concerns.

We put this proposal forward because we believe that the time has come when a more representative board of police commissioners must be in place for Metropolitan Toronto. I said on second reading that I had selected a prime number, number 19. I do not have a great deal of concern about what the number is as long as the principle is accepted that there will be a substantial increase in the number of members of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police for the purpose of establishing a board representative of the complex community in which we live.

It will be noted that in subsection 2 I have tried in my own particular way to give a concise wording to the need to recognize that complexity. That is why I have proposed that in making any of the appointments to such an enlarged board, attention shall be paid to the cultural, racial, social and economic complexity of Metropolitan Toronto to ensure that the metropolitan board reflects that complexity.

5:30 p.m.

I was listening this morning to the Metro Morning radio program preparatory to coming down to the assembly. On that program there was a brief discussion of this issue by Michael Gee, the alderman for ward 10, I believe, and Dorothy Thomas, the alderman for ward 9.

I had the sense that Alderman Gee put forward the proposition that he was concerned about the numbers, because the matter had been raised in one of the committees at city council in which the number of members used was 19. He said, "Obviously, that is much too large a commission." Then he went on to say. "But, of course, a commission of seven or nine would make sense." That is my interpretation of what he said.

If there has been any impact at all upon this assembly and upon the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) of the need to increase the numbers, then I have no problem in moving from 19 to a representative board made up of nine. That would be a very substantial improvement in the size of the board from the point of view of representation.

I cannot conceive that there is any fundamental, ingrained objection by the government to consider the need for an enlarged board in Metropolitan Toronto. It is simply not adequate to have a board of the size and the composition of the existing board if one expects, at any time, to provide some sense of adequate representation for the diverse community in which so many of us live; that is, the Metropolitan Toronto area.

I had thought the particular delineation of members set out in my proposed amendment spoke somewhat for itself. I leave each member of the assembly to consider the actual composition which happens to add up to the number of 19. However, if the Solicitor General, between now and 10:15 tonight -- when it would be possible for us to divide on this bill -- were prepared to bring in an amendment that would provide for a significant increase to, say, nine members of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police, I would be the first one to congratulate him and to accept any such substitute amendment.

I will be interested in what the minister has to say. He is the first person holding the office of Solicitor General who has shown any open- mindedness about the composition of the boards of police commissioners across the province. The bill which we are debating, and the proposed amendments to the Police Act in Bill 87, which will be before the committee when this bill is dealt with, mirror that sense on his part that the antique method of composing police commissions is no longer adequate.

I am urging him and asking him to make a positive statement in this debate about what his intention may be with respect to the size of the Metropolitan Toronto police board.

I cannot conceive that anyone would be so narrow-minded in his view of the amendment that we are simply talking numbers. We are not talking numbers; we are talking numbers on the road to establishing a representative police commission.

I represent, as a number of other members in the assembly represent, ridings within the city of Toronto. Others represent ridings within each of the cities and boroughs that comprise the other aspects of the Metropolitan Toronto area. I would think that there is not a single one of those members who does not, deep down in his own conscious thinking, know that the time has come when the representative nature of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police must be reflected in an enlarged board.

I need not say anything further. The minister, coming from Barrie as he does, has goodwill for the Metropolitan Toronto area, and I can feel it coming now; I know he is about to stand in the House and say that by 10:15 tonight --

Mr. Ruston: Don't hold your breath.

Mr. Renwick: I do not intend to hold it until 10:15, but I know him well enough. I know the kind of open-mindedness he has. I know the spirit of magnanimity with which he approaches these issues. I know the urging he is receiving from his deputy and the members of his staff under the gallery.

I know he would not want to pit himself against the top echelons of his advisers in his own ministry, let alone against the wishes of the Tory members of the Conservative Party who represent the Metropolitan Toronto area, such as the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), who would like to have the Board of Commissioners of Police, as I do, more representative of the complex metropolis in which we live.

I notice the member for Oriole is obviously in agreement, because he has not denied in any way that he shares my concern. I can say to the member for Oriole that if Michael Gee, the alderman on Toronto city council, thinks that while 19 may be a little bit ridiculous, seven or nine would be a very appropriate number, then I am sure the member of Oriole would be swayed by that argument. I wait therefore with eager anticipation the response of the Solicitor General to the proposed amendment.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few comments on the proposed amendment from my friend the member for Riverdale. I wish to say at the outset that I sincerely believe the amendment embodies some principles that are worthy of support.

The difficulty we see on our side of the House is that we feel the issue of amending the Metro composition is a matter that is already the subject of some widespread debate at this time before the Metropolitan Toronto council. Resolutions are in the works, or may even have been passed as we speak, whereby the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) will be asked to introduce specific legislation dealing with what is essentially a matter for the Metropolitan Toronto council.

It would appear to me that while there is a great deal of merit in enlarging the numbers and in reflecting the cultural, racial, social and economic complexity of Metropolitan Toronto, when we are dealing with this type of essentially municipal legislation of a complex nature, it would be more in order to have available to us the complete and detailed report of the select committee that has been studying the amendment to the Police Act, and by definition, by importation, amendments to Bill 86.

It would also be more in order, in my submission. to have the exact requirements of the Metropolitan Toronto council delineated to us by the appropriate resolution, which would then go on its merry course before the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Therefore, while we support the principle contained in the proposed amendment, we will not be supporting it at this time.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment to Bill 86 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

5:40 p.m.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Police Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite certain which section it will be, but it is my understanding the minister will be proposing an amendment that in substance meets one of the amendments to which we had made reference with respect to clarifying the question of the non-eligibility of judges for positions on police commissions.

I assume that is still the minister's intention, therefore, it is my wish to move one amendment so the record will show what our concerns are about Bill 87. It is consistent with the amendments of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) with respect to the regional boards of police. I did distribute copies of the amendment some time ago, but there are some further ones available should anyone wish to have a copy.

Mr. Chairman: Before putting this motion, was the member also asking a question of the minister as to whether he did have an amendment? I understood you to say that was your understanding.

Mr. Renwick: It will be subsequent to this amendment. That is my understanding.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 1 of Bill 87 be amended to read as follows:

"1. Subsections 8(2) and (4) of the Police Act, being chapter 381 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Subject to subsections 2a and 3, the board shall consist of,

"(a) the head of the council;

"(b) one person appointed by resolution of the council; and

"(c) one person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

"(2a) The board of a municipality,

"(a) that has a population of more than 25,000 according to the last municipal census; or

"(b) whose council determines by resolution that this subsection shall apply to the municipality,

"shall consist of,

"(c) the head of the council;

"(d) two persons appointed by resolution of the council; and

"(e) two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

"(4) The council shall provide for the payment of a reasonable remuneration, not being less than the minimum prescribed by the regulations, to the members of the board appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Solicitor General and may provide for the payment of allowances to the other members of the board."

Mr. Renwick: I have a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this amendment was reflected in all the remarks my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold and other members have made about the question of reversing the balance on the police commissions to reflect the municipal representatives having a balance in favour of their representation over the representation of the members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That is all this proposal reflects. The arguments have all been ably put on the preceding bill.

It is not our intention to divide on the matter, but for reasons of consistency we did wish to make it absolutely clear on the record of the House on the debate of these two companion bills that we want to ensure, in those larger municipalities of 25,000 or more or any other council that determines that this provision will apply, that in substance the police commission board would be composed of the head of the council and two persons appointed by resolution of the council, which are three municipal persons on the board, and that the other two persons be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

It is an attempt to reflect the translation of the three appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, to reduce that number to two and to enlarge the number representative of the municipality directly.

Again, the amendment has all the persuasive force my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold and others have brought to bear in trying to persuade the government to accept the other amendments, some of which have been voted on and others which will be voted on at 10:15 tonight in reference to Bill 86.

I commend this amendment to the care and attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor).

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Renwick: I have no further amendments. I eagerly await the amendment to be proposed by the Solicitor General.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. G. W. Taylor moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

"(2) Section 8 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(4a) No judge or justice of the peace shall be appointed as a member of a board.

"(3 Subsection 8(4a) of the said act, as enacted by subsection (2) of this section, does not apply to a judge or justice of the peace who is a member of a board on the day this act comes into force."

Mr. Renwick: I would like to make a brief comment on the amendment proposed by the Solicitor General.

First of all, I welcome the amendment. It is consistent with the intention we had expressed on second reading of Bill 86 and Bill 87 that we would propose the kind of amendment that would make it very clear judges were not eligible as members of police commissions. I was delighted when the Solicitor General indicated he was prepared to accept such an amendment.

When the amendment came forth amending the Police Act, I had an opportunity to have a conversation and discussion about the adequacy of this amendment to the Police Act to deal not only with boards of police commissioners under the Police Act but also to deal with boards of police commissioners under Bill 86 which we have just been dealing with related to the composition of regional boards.

I am satisfied with the legal explanation of interpretation given to me by the senior adviser to the minister on legal matters in his ministry that the bill accomplishes that purpose. I would appreciate it if the Solicitor General would confirm that is so in any remarks he cares to make on his amendment, but I accept that and that we are clearly establishing that judges are not eligible for appointment.

5:50 p.m.

The second technical matter of construction which was of concern to me is that while there is a grandfather clause to protect those judges who at present sit on boards, I wanted to make certain those judges were not eligible for reappointment at the expiration of any term. I was instructed that few of them are appointed with any particular term or any particular duration in time, but that the impetus has been for judges to tend to withdraw from the police commissions across the province when it has been relatively clearly indicated in the amendment we passed some years ago that it would be best if they did not serve.

I understand the numbers are reducing quite rapidly and it may well be not a long time until the intention of this Legislature when these bills are passed will be reflected in the fact that no judges sit as members of police commissions. I am sure the Solicitor General has the statistical information available to him and he may want to share that with us.

We will support this amendment.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Chairman, we on this side welcome and are supportive of the amendment. There is a concern that perhaps should be raised at this point and which the Solicitor General could address himself to. Hitherto, the judges who have served on commissions have done so in an admirable capacity and have been able to provide the procedural safeguards which are so essential to the operation of these boards and so important in dispensing that level of fairness which I think is well reflected in the rules of natural justice.

While the Solicitor General now has a newfound freedom to appoint from a larger group of qualified individuals, he will no doubt have to consider what safeguards can be put in place to provide for at least one member to have the technical expertise and the procedural knowledge, at least in regard to public hearings and hearings in which representations by members of the public are made.

Therefore, while we welcome the removal of this impediment to otherwise qualified individuals, I would be appreciative of the Solicitor General's comments as to what steps and guidelines he would follow in ensuring that individuals with technical expertise are present on these boards.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, watching the clock as best I can, I was just going to add to the comments of the two members in that the two members have made a point of this. I think the act, the way it is amended, specifically spells out now that judges may not participate in appointments to boards. I think the member for Riverdale has that assurance.

Where terms have expired, I have not put into place or recommended to cabinet further appointments of judges. I think what we are directing here, albeit the judges have performed admirably, as the honourable member has suggested, and have done excellent service to the province, there is a feeling, both within the community of the judges and within this minister's feeling, and I think the editorial writers follow that, that there should be a direct appearance of the segregation of the judges.

Albeit I know if there were any conflict of interest or any difficulty in that way they would certainly declare it and not participate, one has to have that overall appearance of being independent. I think judges today, with all the charter actions and other ones, feel there should be total independence of the judiciary and this is one more situation where they can gain that independence. Although service on these boards is voluntary they can be independent and, if not, we can get qualified individuals elsewhere.

I cannot give the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) any assurance the members serving on the boards will be technically able to carry out all the duties of the statute, the hearings and other duties. One must recognize that all these boards can purchase knowledgeable experts to conduct their situations properly, but sometimes not even all lawyers retained are capable of providing that service.

I know some municipalities feel that having a judge or lawyer on the board has provided free technical advice over the years. However, I think we as lawyers would agree it would be better to purchase independent advice rather than seeking it from somebody on the board. So I would say to the member the boards would be wise to seek outside counsel to advise them when they get into technical difficulties as they carry out their functions.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. G. W. Taylor, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment and progress on another bill.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, do you think it is worth while for us to come back?

Mr. Speaker: Please do.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.

November 15, 1983